Pakistan tests Hatf 9 Nasr Missile

[Chanakyaa]

When was Cuba attacked?

Never.

As @bilal Rightly Mentioned, STRATEGIC NUKES Prevented The Same.
And, STRATEGIC =/= TACTICAL !!!

na bhai hum dil per nhi lety kabhi . enjoy karo trolling jab tak wo log nhi a jaty

Ha Ha.... Bahot Khoob !!
Allah Hafiz !

 

[Bilal.]

EXACTLY. Now You Reached the Right Conclusion.

#1. "deployment of strategic nukes" The war Got Prevented. The Fear of TOTAL ANNIHILATION with STRATEGIC NUKES ( ICBS / SLBMS / Bombers )
#2. Tactical Nukes, Though Present and KNOWN TO USA , DID NOT DETER them to Start ( Almost ) aa FULL SCALE INVASION OF CUBA.

#1 + #2 = TACTICAL NUKES ARE POINTLESS.

Q.E.D.

Read the first post I wrote in your reply. The purpose of tactical nuke is to escalate (or threaten to escalate) a limited conventional war to a full fledged strategic nuclear war. I never said that tactical nukes are a silver bullet on their own. It's their role of escalating the conflict that makes them useful as a deterrence.

Limited conventional war (deep incursion) = tactical warheads use = strategic warheads use

Hence the deterrence...

 

[shaheenmissile]

Never.

As @bilal Rightly Mentioned, STRATEGIC NUKES Prevented The Same.
And, STRATEGIC =/= TACTICAL !!!

Strategic Nukes are used for wiping out cities. tactical nukes for Taking out an Armed brigade.
You cannot fire Half a megaton nukes on an enemy army in close quarters with you.
Yes it may start a Full fledged Nuclear war,if a hate filled Psycho like Modi is on the throne,who also had a history of killing Gujrati Muslims.
But if a sane Ruler is there,then Tactical nukes will prevent a Nuclear war.

 

[Chanakyaa]

Strategic Nukes are used for wiping out cities. tactical nukes for Taking out an Armed brigade.
You cannot fire Half a megaton nukes on an enemy army in close quarters with you.
Yes it may start a Full fledged Nuclear war,if a hate filled Psycho like Modi is on the throne,who also had a history of killing Gujrati Muslims.
But if a sane Ruler is there,then Tactical nukes will prevent a Nuclear war.

Its Not about Modi. And Pointless ( Plz Do remember , Nuke Programme Started with Nehru , First Tested by Indira , Then Tried by Narsigha Rao , tested again by Vaypayee ...)

Its About Indian Doctrine. Which Clearly States :

In April 2013 Shyam Saran ( // Modi was NOT a PM Then // ) , convener of the National Security Advisory Board, affirmed that regardless of the size of a nuclear attack against India, be it a Tactical nuclear weapon or a Strategic nuclear weapon, India will retaliate massively

@bilal

The purpose of tactical nuke is to escalate (or threaten to escalate) a limited conventional war to a full fledged strategic nuclear war.

Plz Hold On. DID U Just Said Tactical Nukes are SHOW PIECES ?
Be Realistic. They are There to be Used Right ?

My Point, All Along has been, if you wanna Kill the Enemy, Kill it in the First Shot ( Use Strategic Weapon ) , If You Just Intend to wound it ( Use Tactical Nuke ) , neverthless, you Wont Exist to Fire a Second Shot !!

 

[Bilal.]

@XiNiX not as show piece but a deterrence to stop limited war. That might not be what would actually happen though. In real war scenario if a certain red line is crossed then it. Would be more than just tactical nukes flying.

 

[Chanakyaa]

@XiNiX not as show piece but a deterrence to stop limited war. That might not be what would actually happen though. In real war scenario if a certain red line is crossed then it. Would be more than just tactical nukes flying.

Plz Enlighten Yourself :

The rise of tactical nuclear weapons has been well documented over the past two years. What has received less scrutiny, however, is the doctrine on which this rise has been based. Pakistan’s nuclear advocates make the case that their approach is no different than NATO’s Cold War nuclear posture towards the Soviet Union, and like NATO is the inevitable result of a conventionally weaker country trying to negate its more powerful adversaries’ conventional advantage. But the problem is that this comparison misses some key facts.

First, NATO never intended to physically block a Soviet invasion with tactical nuclear weapons. By the 1960s, it had become clear that NATO would still lose even if it unleashed nukes. This goes for Pakistan too. According to one calculation, it would take up to 436 Pakistani nuclear weapons just to halt a single Indian armored division — a clearly absurd number, that leaps higher still if one assumes lower yield weapons and more dispersed Indian formations. Moreover, as Michael Krepon recently wrote, “Pakistan lacks the real-time surveillance capabilities to destroy [moving] armored columns, except where they are funneling into bridge crossings of water barriers.”

Second, NATO came to understand that tactical nuclear use would devastate the countries supposedly being defended. As the saying went, “the shorter the [nuclear] range, the deader the Germans.” Substitute “Punjabis” for “Germans”, and you have a clearer idea of the problem. The key insight is that NATO’s focus was on using nuclear weapons to send political signals — namely, to signal resolve with actions short of a strategic nuclear exchange — not to win on the battlefield. This distinction tends to be lost in discussions of Pakistan.

Third, tactical nuclear weapons are understood to be especially credible precisely because their forward deployment makes them so vulnerable. NATO, aware of this “use them or lose them” dilemma, pre-delegated launch authority for at least some of its tactical nuclear weapons — specifically, atomic demolition munitions — in Germany in the late 1950s.

How dangerous are Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons?

 

[shaheenmissile]

Its Not about Modi. And Pointless ( Plz Do remember , Nuke Programme Started with Nehru , First Tested by Indira , Then Tried by Narsigha Rao , tested again by Vaypayee ...)

Its About Indian Doctrine. Which Clearly States :




@bilal



Plz Hold On. DID U Just Said Tactical Nukes are SHOW PIECES ?
Be Realistic. They are There to be Used Right ?

My Point, All Along has been, if you wanna Kill the Enemy, Kill it in the First Shot ( Use Strategic Weapon ) , If You Just Intend to wound it ( Use Tactical Nuke ) , neverthless, you Wont Exist to Fire a Second Shot !!

In 2013 there was another Hard line psycho.. Vajpayee

Both are friends

By Normal i meant someone like Rajiv Gandhi

 

[Chanakyaa]

In 2013 there was another Hard line psycho.. Vajpayee

Both are friends

View attachment 87955

By Normal i meant someone like Rajiv Gandhi

Ha Ha .. Had Kar Di Aaapne....
Plz Yaar.. Khu Dimage p Zor De rahe Ho.... in 2013 This Man was PM ::

Rajiv Gandhi... ? Ha HA.. His Mother Divided Your Country in 1971 !!!

Padosi ke PM ke Naam ka NAAM Pata Nahi.. n Tactical Nuke ki Baat Kar rahe Ho...

 

[Bilal.]

Plz Enlighten Yourself :



How dangerous are Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons?

One can have pro and con arguments for virtually anything. That does not change the ground reality though, i.e., the presence of tactical nukes would make an incursion a tougher not easier decision for the Indian command. And that is what a deterrence is.

 

[Imran Khan]

In 2013 there was another Hard line psycho.. Vajpayee

Both are friends

View attachment 87955

By Normal i meant someone like Rajiv Gandhi

View attachment 8202d98c03c6abdb39e4c86c947cdd07.png

 

[shaheenmissile]

View attachment 87970

If a country can resort to massacre civilians in retaliation to Killing soldiers and it is in their official Doctrine,then there is something wrong with them.
Dont you think?

 

[halupridol]

nooookkllliiaaaaaah waaaaaa,,,,,spaartaaa!!!

 

[shaheenmissile]

Ha Ha .. Had Kar Di Aaapne....
Plz Yaar.. Khu Dimage p Zor De rahe Ho.... in 2013 This Man was PM ::



Rajiv Gandhi... ? Ha HA.. His Mother Divided Your Country in 1971 !!!

Ok so my taunt failed massively...
Will try some other time. and no i did not do homework before my tanunt.
Bye.

 

[Chanakyaa]

One can have pro and con arguments for virtually anything. That does not change the ground reality though.

Dont be Naive.
Think of a an Batallion Destroyed in Rajastan Desert , with a Tactical Nuke... Insia Retaliates with SLBMs , and BMs ( To Protect Itself from Further Strikes ) with over 300 Missiles.

Will You Still have "Pros" of Tactical Nukes ?

1 =/= 300 . Isnt It ?

 

[Imran Khan]

If a country can resort to massacre civilians in retaliation to Killing soldiers and it is in their official Doctrine,then there is something wrong with them.
Dont you think?

you need to learn at least basic fats before posts atal biharai vajpayee was in office 19 March 1998 – 19 May 2004